[Duane Ertle]

Originally Posted by subversion

according to the Law of Laws all three laws of thermodynamics must be either irrelevant or incorrect

1. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

2. Sys. left to itself tends to destruction.

3. Absolute zero cannot be reached.

What I have posted has nothing to do with these concepts other than the first, which proves what I have written concerning the force of gravity. The point of what I have written is that *A gravitational field is that from an energy source - what is that source *The possibility of a black hole forming is zero, due to mass converting into eme and being unable to remain as mass when accelerated to a speed greater that that of light. *The possibility of the "big bang" is less than absolute zero.

Respectfully - Me

[subversion]

Originally Posted by Duane Ertle

1. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

2. Sys. left to itself tends to destruction.

3. Absolute zero cannot be reached.

What I have posted has nothing to do with these concepts other than the first, which proves what I have written concerning the force of gravity. The point of what I have written is that *A gravitational field is that from an energy source - what is that source *The possibility of a black hole forming is zero, due to mass converting into eme and being unable to remain as mass when accelerated to a speed greater that that of light. *The possibility of the "big bang" is less than absolute zero.

Respectfully - Me

what is eme? Sorry if I hijacked your thread but all I'm saying is that the jury is out on the 1st law of thermo until we explain the beginning of time or in other words how matter emerged. Also the jury is out on the 2nd law until we witness the end of time because it could theoretically be that at the end of time time reverses. As for the 3rd law, it could also be that at the very end of time we reach a state of absolute zero, so again the jury is out.

-sub

[Duane Ertle]

Originally Posted by subversion

what is eme? Sorry if I hijacked your thread but all I'm saying is that the jury is out on the 1st law of thermo until we explain the beginning of time or in other words how matter emerged. Also the jury is out on the 2nd law until we witness the end of time because it could theoretically be that at the end of time time reverses. As for the 3rd law, it could also be that at the very end of time we reach a state of absolute zero, so again the jury is out.

-sub

I use eme for "electromagnetic energy". I've used this term so often that to abbreviate it is desireable. Having typed the full meaning out once in a post, and then using the abbreviation seems correct.

Your use of the three laws of thermodynamics extends beyond that of the present. It is the present application of these laws that I have used in my post. A person is able to conjure anything up for end laws of "perhaps".


Respectfully Me

[subversion]

Originally Posted by Duane Ertle

I use eme for "electromagnetic energy". I've used this term so often that to abbreviate it is desireable. Having typed the full meaning out once in a post, and then using the abbreviation seems correct.

Your use of the three laws of thermodynamics extends beyond that of the present. It is the present application of these laws that I have used in my post. A person is able to conjure anything up for end laws of "perhaps".


Respectfully Me

well if we're discussing the theory of everything it seems like we should be discussing all, the absolute scenario

[Duane Ertle]

The cosmological concepts are of the present. If the foundation of the present becomes that of the future; I believe the concept of the present, concerning black holes and the "big bang" are absolutely wrong, thus the argument using these concepts toward future values worthless.

Respectfully,.. Me

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by subversion

I enjoyed your comments but I am not too sure about your arguments. First of all, I'm not sure that rearranging Einstein's equations is going to give you any new information. Secondly, I don't think there is an overt need to explain the seemingly inexhaustible force of gravity. Gravity is the force of time, I agree, and thus it is the force of destiny. Thus this force remains enigmatic. Gravity is not based on heat because we know that Mars has no latent heat of formation and yet it still has a gravitational field.

Best luck, sub

Quite right Sub,well said.

kind regards michael.

[Duane Ertle]

If you would be interested in proving what the force of gravity consists of, you might go to http://timebones.blogspot.com and there you will find how to perfrom an experiment on how to form and collapse a gravitational field. c2=e/m.

Your assumption that the planet mars has no heat energy is obviously incorrect. You will note that the shape of planets is that of a sphere. This is also true of our sun. The reason for this shape is that the heat energy within. This process is used in making shot for shotgun shells. Heat energy within a mass forms the mass into a sphere, if the temp is great enough to break the electron bonding. The reason asteroids are not spherical is that they do not have adequate internal energy to form them into that shape.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by Duane Ertle

I use eme for "electromagnetic energy". I've used this term so often that to abbreviate it is desireable. Having typed the full meaning out once in a post, and then using the abbreviation seems correct.

Your use of the three laws of thermodynamics extends beyond that of the present. It is the present application of these laws that I have used in my post. A person is able to conjure anything up for end laws of "perhaps".


Respectfully Me

indeed, a person would have to know all the laws of "perhaps" and then they would know the toe right?

[subversion]

Originally Posted by Duane Ertle

If you would be interested in proving what the force of gravity consists of, you might go to http://timebones.blogspot.com and there you will find how to perfrom an experiment on how to form and collapse a gravitational field. c2=e/m.

Your assumption that the planet mars has no heat energy is obviously incorrect. You will note that the shape of planets is that of a sphere. This is also true of our sun. The reason for this shape is that the heat energy within. This process is used in making shot for shotgun shells. Heat energy within a mass forms the mass into a sphere, if the temp is great enough to break the electron bonding. The reason asteroids are not spherical is that they do not have adequate internal energy to form them into that shape.

Yes, mars is around because it formed, like the earth, as a ball of molten magma. At one point it was highly volcanically active and it even sports the largest volcano in the solar system, olympus mons. However, there is little if any heat believed to exist in it's core today. But to make the argument easier, let's talk about pluto. If mars is a cold place pluto is even colder, and yet it still has a gravitational field.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by subversion

Yes, mars is around because it formed, like the earth, as a ball of molten magma. At one point it was highly volcanically active and it even sports the largest volcano in the solar system, olympus mons. However, there is little if any heat believed to exist in it's core today. But to make the argument easier, let's talk about pluto. If mars is a cold place pluto is even colder, and yet it still has a gravitational field.

You have a point there Sub,not a sharp
one but a point no less.

kindregards michael.